Absurd?
How the hell can there be a beginning to timelessness?
What’s the message?
That question is raised in time, but the statement does not anticipate this question, because it’s timelessness J Since it’s got a beginning its not timelessness and tendency is to get trapped in time with anticipation and get out of timelessness! This signifies beginning of time. If there is just timelessness where is the question of anticipation etc, it is just what it is now. So there is no beginning then why the statement "beginning of timelessness"?
But when did I know that there is no beginning? Yes timelessness cannot have a question, when? But when did I know that? Simple ... as soon as I’m in time I should have 'known' timelessness, of course I can I’m in time when I perceive change I don’t need any proof.
But to perceive time I have to be out of time.
I’m perceiving time and I’m out of it and so is that the beginning of timelessness then, I can’t say perceiving of timelessness is its beginning because timelessness seems to be there always! If perceiving of time can begin time why not perceiving of timelessness begin timelessness. If I perceiving has got nothing to do with beginning... then time and timelessness should coexist! That’s not beginning for timelessness... in time?
Perceiving timelessness in time?
Do I want to prove there is no beginning?! “when I perceive" is itself in time as WHEN signifies time. Yes as long as I perceive it is in time and then it will have a beginning...and not until I come out of timelessness J If perceiving of time can begin time why not perceiving of timelessness begin timelessness. If me perceiving has got nothing to do with beginning... then time and timelessness should coexist!
So both time and timelessness are coexisting same time and I can perceive anything anytime!
And hence it’s beginning of timelessness ... 'cuz its time already. So time is just a speck of timelessness, it’s like a small unit of infinity. Well logically it seems to make sense, but again timelessness can also go the other side negative infinity which seems it’s in time when this happens its beginning of timelessness, ... back to square one!, yeah tough to comprehend!
But then if there could be beginning of timelessness there should be end of timelessness which is beginning of time itself... besides did time give birth to timelessness or timelessness give birth to time?.....Or do both coexist all time, if they coexist then nothing gave birth to anything, if nothing gave birth to anything, there is no beginning. But end of timelessness is beginning of time and end of time is beginning of timelessness
There can be no end as they coexist? If there is no end to time then there is timelessness and as the same time, there is no time. Again, if there is no end to timelessness then there is time then there is no timelessness. And that’s why they coexist!
Both cannot be different when they coexist same time in timelessness Also, without time there can be no timelessness and vice versa. But then how did perception fail to perceive timelessness? And when it does, is it not beginning of timelessness? By which “PERCEPTION IS TIMELESS” and hence the absurd statement "beginning of timelessness" triumphs
And both time and timelessness are absurd, they have no meaning.
In the statement, “beginning” signifies time and timelessness is opposite of time.... how can this begin that, this cannot begin that and that cannot begin this and both have no relation?This is why the dispute was raised in the first place. But end of this is beginning of that.
So both have relation and also have no relation, both are interdependent and independent, both are mutually exclusive and inclusive
And so IT’S TIME FOR TIMELESSNESS?
